Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 10:16:39 AM

Login with username, password and session length

BREXIT GOES BACK AND FIFTH

Started by Replies From View, January 21, 2019, 10:15:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Where you at?

May's agreement
4 (4.6%)
No deal
12 (13.8%)
General election
9 (10.3%)
Cancel A50
44 (50.6%)
Vandalising my cock and balls
7 (8%)
Syndicating every boat I row
1 (1.1%)
Fish heads, fish heads, eat them up:  yum.
7 (8%)
Wearing a test tube over my knob and wanking the test tube with a tea cloth
3 (3.4%)

Total Members Voted: 87

hummingofevil

Quote from: jobotic on February 11, 2019, 02:44:44 PM
You're quite right. I'm pretty sure all that was pointed out last time he posted it though, and it was ignored.

And yes, slaves were stolen. Just as empires didn't consist of countries that voluntarily signed up to become part of them.

"outward looking nation"
"Global Britain"

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

ToneLa

Quote from: jobotic on February 11, 2019, 02:21:18 PM
It's not thought provoking, and I'm pretty sure you've postyed it beofre. Any comment on who thefullbrexit are?

He won't answer this, will he....

🌬️

Why did Biggy cross the road?
The EU want to imprison you in a corrupt technocracy!

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Replies From View on February 11, 2019, 12:40:37 PM
I can't quite comprehend what he's saying there.

He's agreeing that EU citizens living in the UK should have had a vote in the referendum and therefore it was undemocratic. However, he is either unaware of the fact or studiously ignoring it.

hummingofevil

Quote from: ToneLa on February 11, 2019, 02:47:25 PM
He won't answer this, will he....

🌬️

https://www.thefullbrexit.com/about

Does seem legit TBF. List at bottom seems fairly reputable at a glance.

ToneLa

#2434
Quote from: hummingofevil on February 11, 2019, 02:53:35 PM
https://www.thefullbrexit.com/about

Does seem legit TBF. List at bottom seems fairly reputable at a glance.

I've read that. It seems like a Leave propoganda site. In that sense it's legit! It has an agenda.

QuoteEurosceptics rightly complain that powerful elite Remainers are conspiring to sabotage Brexit


... A more democratic future and, second, that a clean break with the EU is needed to realise that potential.

EU rules are not neutral: they lock in a set of neoliberal policies that tightly constrain governments' capacity to innovate, experiment, and tackle voters' concerns.

Sound familiar??

I think Biggy chooses it because it agrees with him, which doesn't flow both ways I have noticed...

Talulah, really!

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 11, 2019, 02:06:17 PM
We stole Gibraltar from the Spanish anway and should give it back.

A thought provoking article on the cognitive dissonance of 'free movement' - https://www.thefullbrexit.com/anti-racism

Thought provoking only in its own cognitive dissonance at best, at worst down right deceitful in its argument, since NHS 'brain-drain' of poorer countries has effects on India, Pakistan and numerous African states, none of whom are in the EU and whether the NHS continues to recruit from these countries is in our power now and after brexit. It is a separate issue.

I'll always be suspicious of articles that seem more pre-occupied with stopping the free movement of people over the greater priority of stopping the free movement of capital, if equality is really what you are after. Close down the tax havens before we get around to building any new border walls.

biggytitbo

Quote from: hummingofevil on February 11, 2019, 02:38:13 PM
It's also complete nonsense.


I guess the devastating loss of key working age people in EU countries like Latvia and Romania is 'complete nonsense' too is it? Lost to the rich Western countries in the EU like Germany, France and the UK?

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Talulah, really! on February 11, 2019, 03:21:51 PM
I'll always be suspicious of articles that seem more pre-occupied with stopping the free movement of people over the greater priority of stopping the free movement of capital, if equality is really what you are after. Close down the tax havens before we get around to building any new border walls.

Yes, this is a curious blind spot among lexiters, if that is truly what they are.

jobotic

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 11, 2019, 03:22:04 PM

I guess the devastating loss of key working age people in EU countries like Latvia and Romania is 'complete nonsense' too is it? Lost to the rich Western countries in the EU like Germany, France and the UK?

The answer is clearly to tell them to fuck off, and make ourselves less rich. I mean we could train and pay people here properly but that would cost money and we need that to fund brexit/pay off our credit card.


biggytitbo

Quote from: Talulah, really! on February 11, 2019, 03:21:51 PM
Thought provoking only in its own cognitive dissonance at best, at worst down right deceitful in its argument, since NHS 'brain-drain' of poorer countries has effects on India, Pakistan and numerous African states, none of whom are in the EU and whether the NHS continues to recruit from these countries is in our power now and after brexit. It is a separate issue.

I'll always be suspicious of articles that seem more pre-occupied with stopping the free movement of people over the greater priority of stopping the free movement of capital, if equality is really what you are after. Close down the tax havens before we get around to building any new border walls.

I'm afraid you are indulging in the dreaded 'whataboutery' here, the article is about racism in the brexit vote and the EU and so those are the subjects it talks about. He is making the reasonable point that there is a cognitive dissonance about opposing the marketisation of the NHS and simultaneously supporting free movement which has the market effect of allowing rich western countries to hoover up key health workers from poorer countries. That's how markets work and its not always a good thing is it?

https://www.politico.eu/article/doctors-nurses-migration-health-care-crisis-workers-follow-the-money-european-commission-data/

QuoteRomania lost half its doctors between 2009 and 2015. A few years after Poland joined the EU, more than 60 percent of fifth- and sixth-year medical students planned to pursue work abroad. Slovakia had about 15,000 practicing physicians when it joined the EU in 2004; 3,800 have applied to leave since then.

Hardest hit by the exodus of doctors and nurses: the EU's newest members, plus crisis-hit Portugal and Greece, according to POLITICO's analysis of Commission data.

In some countries, the loss of doctors and nurses seems to be already taking a toll. In Romania, for example, 10 percent of the population reported going without medical care.

Paul Calf

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 11, 2019, 02:06:17 PM
We stole Gibraltar from the Spanish anway and should give it back.

Don't the people who live and work there get a say in that?

Of course they don't.

Paul Calf

Quote from: jobotic on February 11, 2019, 03:39:00 PM
The answer is clearly to tell them to fuck off, and make ourselves less rich. I mean we could train and pay people here properly but that would cost money and we need that to fund brexit/pay off our credit card.

His only concern is that Bulgaria's best and brightest stay in Bulgaria iand make it economikcally propsperous nstead of coming over here and working in our NHS.

Or was that Paul Nuttalls of the UKIPs? To be honest, if your opinions can be confused with those of Paul Nuttalls of the UKIPs, it's probably time to have a little think.

Howj Begg

#2442
That fullbrexit article focuses purely on the economic elements of free movement, almost as it argues the EU with its neoliberal agenda does. It ignores the cultural and personal aspects entirely; the freedoms to study, to live and to marry are obviously not important to the author, but they're important to Europeans,to me, to my Greek and French families, to the Spanish students I teach. Whoever agrees with the line of argument in that article wants to doom everyone to the same level of ignorance and misery as them. People with vast cultural voids indeed.

Free movement is an unqualified good; the abuse of free movement to underpay workers and split the solidarity of the workforce is the same thing that employers will do after we leave the EU, unless regulated by government, and unless we have a stronger trade union culture without laws weakening TU powers and organisation. Restricting free movement is not the answer, it is destroying a vital freedom for rhetorical purposes only, instead of tackling the root problem - just like snooping on people's private digital communications is not how to deal with terrorism; not having an interventionist foreign policy is.

And yes I do have problems with the non-argument that Corbyn and the Labour party have yet made re free movement.

I'm going to do some obscure blog post linking now myself, because I very much agree with this guy's take on how the Left needs to think about free movement. Racism is sufficient for wanting to abolish free movement or to distrust it, but not always necessary. We don't need to focus on that to criticise the blind destructive nature of endign free movement in such an internationally connected, immigrant-rich set of nations as Britain is, and always will be. I'm giving Corbyn the benefit of the doubt on this currently, but I do want to see Labour government policy and propoganda about this change, to reflect our members' views as much as anything else.

https://jeremygilbertwriting.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/remarks-on-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

QuoteDear Jeremy,

Obviously the crux of Brexit is that, at the moment, it frames all politicial discussions and overpowers questions about social injustice etc. pp. Nevertheless, Brexit has to be addressed as a very real and urgent problem. I just read Owen Jones in the Guardian and Mark Perryman on the blog of Lawrence&Wishart. I think Norway is not an option and I subscribe to the somewhat pragmatic approach of Mark that article 50 should be extended – which doesn't solve the main problem, just gives some more time. I am very ambivalent about a new referendum (living in a country where plebiscites are a common occurence). What is your take on these matters?

I don't think that Corbyn is, secretly, a Brexiteer, and I accept that scepticims towards and criticism of the EU is essential. However, I still think that Labour was and is ill-prepared for this discussion. I think that the free movement of people is a value which should be embraced by the Left. Everything else panders to nationalism and racism. In Switzerland, the Social Democrats (which are slightly to the left of other European Social Democrats) and the trade unions try to secure enhanced rights and proper working conditions for all people while accepting migration. The demand for a customs union as a minimal condition seems to me just a technocratic device and is only discussed unter very narrow economic terms. I think Corbyn neglected to forge discussions and alliances with other left-wing groups and trade unions on the Continent. In this respect, his programme is a bit insular and parochial.

Has the momentum of the Labour Party (and, indeed, of "Momentum") stalled in the last few months? Or has it been possible to transfer the enthusiasm and the new membership base from the general election into more grassroot activities? Can Corbyn's position be reconciled with the wish of most party members for a People's vote?

I would be grateful for any insight into any of these questions.

Many thanks

Stefan
Hi Stefan
Okay I've answered as best I can!
Cheers
Jem
Have we lost momentum? Yes of course. Brexit is fundamentally not an issue that most Labour members really want to have to campaign on one way or another; and yet it is the only issue in UK politics right now. So it is rather inevitable that we would have lost some momentum at this point. But it is also true that the leadership has been pursuing a strategy that, while wholly understandable and credible on its own terms, has been unpopular with, and uninspiring for, members.
So what should happen, and what should Labour's strategy be?
Well I don't think that Norway + can be ruled out. There has always been a good case that this was the most obvious expression of the actual referendum result – a very narrow vote for Brexit. From Labour's perspective, Norway + is an attractive option because most of the Remain-voting portion of its electoral coalition (and membership) would see this as an acceptable alternative to any harder form of Brexit, while it would enable Labour to claim that they had honoured the referendum result.
However, the problem with it, of course, is that it would require a commitment to free movement of labour / people. And, as Teresa May keeps saying, it is clear that the principle thing that the electorate thought they were voting for when they voted for Brexit, was an end to free movement. If Labour were to accept a deal (either  as part of a parliamentary coalition, without a general election, or in government, after an election) that included free movement, then there can be no question that the same tabloids and other right-wing forces that have promoted anti-immigration politics for decades would make very very clear to Leave voters that this is what Labour was doing. Under these circumstances, there is no chance of Norway + appeasing Labour's own pro-Leave voters. That's the problem with it.
So Labour would have to campaign hard to win at least some of those voters away from their anti-immigration positions.
I think Labour could do this. There is good evidence that with a large portion of the working-class, Leave-voting, Labour-leaning electorate , their positions on Brexit and on immigration are a consequence of them having been sold a story about immigration being the cause of declining living standards. Classical racism and even virulent xenophobia  remain comparatively weak amongst the British working class (not absent, but weaker than among most comparable populations). It's an economic narrative that they have been convinced by, which means that they could be convinced by a better economic narrative. Vigorous campaigning and popular education could win over many of these voters to a progressive position.
Of course, the question then is – if we did manage to win over voters to a more progressive position, what then would be the argument for not trying to stop Brexit altogether? I suppose the pro-Lexit answer to that question is that we have to promote a narrative that says 'yes you are right to blame the EU and possibly right to blame freedom of movement, for your problems – but these are only part of a bigger picture that only our programme can fully address'. Which is fair enough. But it assumes that a very right-wing political discourse can be partially accepted, partially challenged, and re-articulated to a very left-wing project. As I'll explain further in a moment, I have doubts about this.
What is the Labour leadership's position in relation to all these issues (by 'leadership' I mean a handful of senior MPs, the key advisors, in Corbyn's personal office, and trade union leaders, especially Len McCluskey, leader of the Unite union)? My suspicion is that the leadership's ideal scenario would be to keep fudging the issue of free movement, not committing themselves to it or entirely ruling it out, until having won a general election, from which point they would be in a much stronger position to engage in a campaign of popular education to challenge the reactionary elements of the pro-Brexit discourse of the Right.
Well, my suspicion is that this probably applies to some of the leadership. The other thing to take into consideration is that some of them are also themselves simply opposed to free movement and think that it does undermine wages and the general bargaining power of labour. What they seem to want isn't even 'Norway plus' – as far as I can see, what they want is basically May's version of Brexit, but implemented by a Corbyn government instead of by May.
Corbyn himself would be going against some of his own most cherished principles were he to accept this position, however.  He has always been anti-racist, anti-xenophobic, pro-refugee, pro-freedom of movement. The same is true of the vast majority of Labour members. My impression is that, again, the compromise that the leadership have arrived at is simply to try to fudge this issue until the other side of a general election.
Is that general election itself an unobtainable goal? The parliamentary arithmetic would certainly seem to make it seem so. However, the rumour around Westminster is that ultimately, May herself would prefer another election to a second referendum. So if the current parliamentary impasse becomes intolerable then she may call one. If Labour begins campaigning for a second referendum now, then the danger is that it will be seen as taking a clearly pro-Remain position, allowing May to call an election at which she can present herself as the only Leave candidate; which was exactly her plan in 2017, and which could, Labour strategists fear, enable her to achieve the landslide victory that she was hoping for then.
However, the idea that such a situation can be avoided assumes that Labour could, once again, fight an election on an entirely fudged platform with regard to Brexit and free movement, and that its activist base (overwhelmingly pro-Remain and even more overwhelmingly pro-free movement) would mobilise as it did in 2017 under such circumstances.
These are themselves highly dubious propositions. One might just as well argue that if the Labour activist base were sufficiently motivated, then they could go into an election and maybe actually win the argument against Brexit by campaigning for what the vast majority of that activist base actually believes in. One should also point out that the single most common mistake made by political leaderships in the UK is to assume that the next election will be just like the last one.
The upshot of all this, I think, is that sooner or later, Labour is going to have to campaign explicitly against the anti-immigrant narrative of the Daily Mail  and The Sun, in order to win over a section of its working-class base from a reactionary position, based entirely in misinformation and prejudice. There is simply no shirking this historic task if Labour is ever going to have a hope of actually winning a popular mandate for a progressive programme. The reasons why this is not a good time to begin that task are obvious. But it looks increasingly unlikely that anything can be gained by deferring it for very long.
I think you are right that there is a lack of internationalism to Labour's perspective and a complete lack of internationalist strategy. To my mind this is the fundamental problem with the 'Lexit' idea. Advocates of this position like to present themselves as hard-headed Marxists. In fact it seems to me that their position is entirely 'institutionalist'. They seem to think that leaving the EU will magically liberate us from the complex global configuration of power relations of which the current politics of the EU is merely one expression. It doesn't seem to occur to them for a moment that European finance capital will be just as powerful the day after we leave the EU as it was the day before; and will be just as hostile to Corbyn's domestic agenda. They constantly point out that the EU has certain neoliberal (or, at least, ordoliberal) features baked into its institutions and structure. But exactly the same is true of the institution of theBritish state; and yet they propose to build socialism in the UK by occupying those institutions. There is no argument against staying in the EU and fighting with our allies to transform its politics that cannot be levelled against the very idea of electoral political as a socialist strategy on any scale.
From my perspective the fundamental political question that will face any left-wing UK government is not 'Brexit or not Brexit; soft Brexit or hard Brexit'?. The question will be 'how do we pursue our agenda in the face of persistent neoliberal hegemony across Europe?'. And the only realistic answer will be 'we cant' – we must organise with allies in Europe to break that hegemony' . The question then is 'will leaving the EU make it easier or harder to do that?'. Nobody has presented a convincing case that the answer to what question is 'easier'.
All of the pro-Lexit  narratives that one encounters are basically fantasies of a UK government being able to implement social democracy without having to worry about neoliberal hegemony in Europe. It's not an accident that these almost all come from economists or people in the think-tank world. Those groups of people are always great at coming up with grand blueprints for what they would do in government, and generally are not very good at analysing the complex political sociology of the situation in which they would actually have to try to implement those plans. As far as I can see, Lexit is a version of what I always call ' the Fabian fantasy' – the belief that somehow a group of clever and well-intentioned policy-makers will be able to implement a plan for social reform, without having to mobilise a movement or challenge entrenched concentrations of power in the process.
I think this is simply refusing to face up to the political reality: that the biggest challenge facing the Left today is the fact that capital is an entirely transnational force, while our domestic political imaginaries remain entirely rooted in the 'national-popular'. This is a fact, but it is one that presents an obstacle to all political progress today, and so it must be overcome – it cannot be simply avoided or deferred. 
There are two more things to say about all this.
One is that all propositions about Brexit are ultimately speculative. Nobody really knows that the effects will be if we leave or if we Remain. But what we do know is that Labour must be a vehicle for the expression of its members view and wishes – or else it is nothing. That is why I do think that ultimately, the members should be leading on this – and we all know that if that were happening, then Labour would be campaigning for a 'Remain and Reform' positions arguing for a People's Vote, but also arguing strongly that the EU must change political direction.
Instead,  right now we find ourselves in a situation that is depressingly analogous to the days of New Labour. A certain section of the leadership (most notably, left-wing MPs representing heavily Leave-voting constituencies in the North of England) are convinced that the pro-Remain sentiments of the members are out of touch with the anti-EU feelings of they voters, and so they (the MPs) must retain control of the political strategy in order to prevent the naive members from alienating the voters.
This seems to simply rule out the possibility that the members might be allowed to go and talk to the voters and try to change their minds. Given that this is exactly what happened in the 2017 election, it is strange that the leadership are apparently not interested in allowing the same thing to happen again. But this is partly because a number of them actively want Brexit to happen, as I already mentioned. It's also because they believe (mistakenly, in my view) that Brexit is such an entrenched and symbolic issue for those voters that campaigning Labour members would not be able to change their minds. My view on that it is that it may well be true with some or even with most leave/ Labour voters, but that we don't need to win over all of them in order to secure a majority for Remain and for a Labour government, and that there is no reason to think we can't win over enough of them.
I think that overall, the complexity of the situation, and the fact that it is so difficult to discern any course of action for Labour that does not carry immediate costs, demonstrates that there simply is no pragmatic, tactical response to the situation available. Under such circumstances, what is needed is not parliamentary game-playing, but vision and strategy, led by the membership rather than by a handful of apparatchiks in the leaders' office. Trying to figure out a strategy that doesn't carry significant dangers for Labour is just a waste of energy – there obviously isn't one.
Having said all that – do I think that Labour RIGHT NOW should declare itself for a 'People's Vote'? No. I think that if the strategy I am recommending here were to be adopted, it would clearly need as much time as possible to have a chance of proving effective. So I think it is probably right that we carry on as we are for the next month or so, and if (when) we still can't get an election, we support delaying article 50 for as long as possible. At that point we have got to start building our campaign to neutralise the Daily Mail Brexit narrative that has come to dominate British political culture.
The other thing to say is that even those with a pro-Lexit position have got to acknowledge that hardly anyone voted for Brexit because they are radical socialists who believe that the EU is an institutional block to the implementation of socialism. Almost everyone who voted Leave did so because they believed a narrative coming from the extreme nationalist fraction of the British ruling class (who control the press), according to which the EU and immigration are the causes of austerity, rapid social change and the crisis of liberal democracy. My argument would be that we will never win a proper mandate for a progressive programme without challenging this narrative – which is evidently not something that the Lexiteers propose to do. They propose to ride the Brexit wave to socialism. To me this seems highly problematic. To think that you can found a progressive project on a mandate that has been won for you by the extreme Right is obviously tendentious. Even if we believe in Lexit, it is surely politically necessary to challenge the right-wing Brexit narrative publicly, on the doorsteps and in our communities.

As you can see, ultimately most of what I have to say about this isn't really about Brexit. My position is that we have to build up a political position that enables us to challenge the right-wing explanation for austerity, social breakdown and the democratic crisis, and that we have to develop a political strategy for challenging neoliberal hegemony across Europe. It is possible to imagine all that taking the form of a pro-Brexit position, which is why I think that the leadership have convinced themselves that all of their parliamentary tactics and triangulation could lead to a place where they manage to hold together Labour's electoral coalition easily and get to implement their programme in government. But it is not possible to imagine the Labour membership putting the kind of energy into it that would be required win the fights we will have to win, if they have been forced to accept a position on Brexit that they fundamentally don't believe in. Which is why I ultimately think that the argument being made by people like Paul Mason is correct.


Zetetic

I note that one solution to healthcare trainees leaving for foreign countries is to tie financial support during training to a subsequent period of employment in the originating country.

I know this, because it's something that countries in the UK do. (Here, ridiculously, we have a situation where there are four very closely aligned pay deals - and one of them has a bonus for one of the places least affected by the staffing crises.)

I think this is a better solution that serfdom-by-default, myself, because it involves a voluntary agreement with particular benefits to the individual and their society - rather than emphasising that rights should be an accident of birth.




Again the thread has been drawn into discussing something that's entirely irrelevant to the Brexit we actually have, led by the government who are actually in power. (In this case it's almost entirely irrelevant to any possible Brexit, since Labour is unlikely to commit to a catastrophic widening of the staffing crises.)


biggytitbo

Quote from: Howj Begg on February 11, 2019, 03:58:06 PM
That fullbrexit article focuses purely on the economic elements of free movement, almost as it argues the EU with its neoliberal agenda does. It ignores the cultural and personal aspects entirely; the freedoms to study, to live and to marry are obviously not important to the author, but they're important to Europeans,to me, to my Greek and French families, to the Spanish students I teach.


I'll read your full post later but it's evident this 'benefit' is not a thing that everyone regards in the same way, in fact many millions don't care at all about it, it's not a thing that is remotely part of their experience at all, and it's actually a bit arrogant for a minority to demand their own concerns are shared by everyone else as if they are universal.

jobotic

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 11, 2019, 04:13:55 PM

I'll read your full post later but it's evident this 'benefit' is not a thing that everyone regards in the same way, in fact many millions don't care at all about it, it's not a thing that is remotely part of their experience at all, and it's actually a bit arrogant for a minority to demand their own concerns are shared by everyone else as if they are universal.

Perfect. The essence of Biggy.

Howj Begg

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 11, 2019, 04:13:55 PM

I'll read your full post later but it's evident this 'benefit' is not a thing that everyone regards in the same way, in fact many millions don't care at all about it, it's not a thing that is remotely part of their experience at all, and it's actually a bit arrogant for a minority to demand their own concerns are shared by everyone else as if they are universal.

Based on the things that you think people should be concerned about, like Alex Jones being banned on facebook, and keeping foreigners out of your town, I'd argue the same.


Edit: I shouldn't have replied to you; I'm 100% certain that you are a paid troll at his day job on here. I bet you've got some fucking dodgy paymasters.

Paul Calf

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 11, 2019, 04:13:55 PM

I'll read your full post later but it's evident this 'benefit' is not a thing that everyone regards in the same way, in fact many millions don't care at all about it, it's not a thing that is remotely part of their experience at all, and it's actually a bit arrogant for a minority to demand their own concerns are shared by everyone else as if they are universal.

Fuck's sake, Titbo.

Zetetic

Wait, is this the death penalty thread now?

bgmnts

So lads and ladettes i'll be in Hungary in March. In a right wing nationlistic country just as Brexit happens.

Will I get my head kicked in for hours by roider skinheads?

ToneLa

Quote from: bgmnts on February 11, 2019, 04:25:02 PM
So lads and ladettes i'll be in Hungary in March. In a right wing nationlistic country just as Brexit happens.

Will I get my head kicked in for hours by roider skinheads?

My mate Ed went last year and was worried but he met lots of friendly people. And he's a Leaver!

hummingofevil

Quote from: ToneLa on February 11, 2019, 03:00:36 PM
I've read that. It seems like a Leave propoganda site. In that sense it's legit! It has an agenda.


Sound familiar??

I think Biggy chooses it because it agrees with him, which doesn't flow both ways I have noticed...

I meant the list of academics and supporters seems legit rather than made up.

It is however, rather amusing that a pro-Brexit group are all swinging their dicks and lady-dicks around about their doctorates and professorships when people have had enough of experts.

Quote from: bgmnts on February 11, 2019, 04:25:02 PM
So lads and ladettes i'll be in Hungary in March. In a right wing nationlistic country just as Brexit happens.

Will I get my head kicked in for hours by roider skinheads?

Only if you're brown.

ToneLa

Quote from: hummingofevil on February 11, 2019, 04:39:26 PM
I meant the list of academics and supporters seems legit rather than made up.

It is however, rather amusing that a pro-Brexit group are all swinging their dicks and lady-dicks around about their doctorates and professorships when people have had enough of experts.

It did amuse me. Plenty of layers of irony with Brexit!

End of the day it's still a blog that's been up a year and runs out soon with a specific, and specified, anti-Remain purpose. Some academics back that agenda! Good for them, but it seems like the kind of place you go when your mind is already made up...

You did Biggy's work for him! Next thread title should be Brexit6: Don't Ask Anything

hummingofevil

Just trying to get my pie chart stats up. #teamPurple

ToneLa

Haha.

ToneLa'sRight ToneLa'sRight ToneLa'sRight ToneLa'sRight

biggytitbo

Howj Begg, have you read Richard Seymour's latest on the white working class, it's makes some of the same points as you posted and is a good read even if I don't agree with everything he says https://www.patreon.com/posts/brexit-and-white-24468324

Two points - I don't think the much derided 'lexit' is the answer, it gets things the wrong way round. I prefer thinking of brexit as 'the purge' of our political classes, its about radically reseting our fundamentally broken political system and changing how we make the collective decisions as a country about how were run. It's not just about just about securing a specific outcome, I want us to go in a lexity direction in the future and believe brexit sill make it easier, but the future still has to be won.

Secondly, the remain and reform position does not exist, it's as much a unicorn now as it was when Blair was palming us off with it 20 years ago. The whole point of the EU is to be resistant to such reforms, it just isn't happening. It's literally PR bullshit from the same liars who need to go in 'the purge'.

ToneLa

#DrainTheSwamp for the UK Biggy?

Buelligan

Quote from: biggytitbo on February 11, 2019, 04:13:55 PM

I'll read your full post later but it's evident this 'benefit' is not a thing that everyone regards in the same way, in fact many millions don't care at all about it, it's not a thing that is remotely part of their experience at all, and it's actually a bit arrogant for a minority to demand their own concerns are shared by everyone else as if they are universal.

Like cancer-sufferers wanting "free" drugs on the NHS or transexual people wishing to be treated respectfully just like everyone else or vegetarians hoping to feed themselves a meat-free diet or cyclists enjoying the relative safety of cycle paths or blind people using braille labeling on products in shops or pram-users being able to put them at the front of the bus or nut allergy sufferers reading the warnings or women wanting to piss sitting down or pregnant women wanting to sit down or old people needing to sit down or aspergers sufferers needing a bit of quiet in the quiet carriage or dog owners using the poo-bins or plane passengers stopping in the kiss and drop off or wheelchair users using the wide checkouts or ambulance drivers putting on the sirens or little kiddies going down the front so's they can see or non-swimmers in the shallow end or people who can't be arsed to think or care about others not exactly like them, apparently, living in the shallow end.  That sort of thing?

Johnny Yesno